Grendel
Well-Known Member
Better have a word with nick "there is no where to build a stadium" Eastwood then.
Do council leaders have the same obligation?
Out of interest, is a company chairman obliged to tell the truth in public statements? Should we at least on the face of it, have to take him at his word?
Very much pants down.Thanks OSB, I think I understand that.
1) ACL, the fixture and fittings, lease is security for the bonds regardless of who holds the shares in ACL
2) the bond holders will have to approve or reject any sale of shares.
3) the security in the bonds mean that whoever buys in will have to pay 8-9x what wasps did
4) whoever buys will have to also take on the liability for a debt they never took on
5) wasps won't want to sell the shares anyway
6) wasps don't need the club and therefore are completely in the box seat for negotiations which will likely be a take it or leave it off
7) we're up shit creek without a paddle
8) wasps aren't going to make any deal based on on the improbability if flukeing a promotion in the future
It's all very depressing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Better have a word with nick "there is no where to build a stadium" Eastwood then.
Do council leaders have the same obligation?
Of course, people can quote him and question him. Surely using his statement in one breath and then saying he can't lie straight in bed in the other is a bit strange.
Everything should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, we have seen all sides posturing.
There's no issue with taking the piss out of him, but then you can't really use something as fact the next second he has said.
did he say that the Ricoh was necessary for Wasps' survival because of the 365 days revenue? Is that true? Are the council leader's facing an ethics committee? ( Because they have this obligation).
Do council leaders have the same obligation?
Code of conduct and standards
As a councillor you will be required to adhere to your council’s agreed code of conduct for elected members. Each council adopts its own code, but it must be based on the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s seven principles of public life (see next page). These were developed by the Nolan Committee,which looked at how to improve ethical standards in public life, and are often referred to as the ‘Nolan’ principles.
These principles apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those elected or appointed to public of office, nationally and locally, and everyone appointed to work in the civil service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies and in the health, education and social care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to everyone in other sectors delivering public services.
Under the Localism Act, all standards matters became the responsibility of local authorities, which are required to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by elected members. You must register any disclosable pecuniary interests for yourself, your spouse or a partner you live with within 28 days of taking up office. It is a criminal offence if you fail, without reasonable excuse,to declare or register interests to themonitoring oficer.
Seven principlesof public life
Selflessness
Holders of public office should actsolely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
Openness
Holders of public office should actand take decisions in an open andtransparent manner. Informationshould not be withheld from thepublic unless there are clear andlawful reasons for doing so.
Honesty
Holders of public office should betruthful.
Leadership
Holders of public office shouldexhibit these principles in their ownbehaviour. They should activelypromote and robustly support theprinciples and be wiling to changepoor behaviour wherever it occurs.
Objectivity
Holders of public office must act andtake decisions impartially, fairly andon merit, using the best evidence andwithout discrimination or bias.
Accountability
Holders of public office areaccountable to the public for theirdecisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
In other words we should have gone for ACL come what may because that was the key to the life of the football club. Tapped up our potential investors ( that TF says are still around ) to finance buying an existing stadium with 365 days revenue. That was the only way. Haggling over 5,5m and trying to knock the YB was not clever. If we are ever going to get 365 days a year revenue, it will cost a lot more money and time than the full loan and the 2 half shares in ACL would have.
From the Hedge fund bibleFrom the Local Government Association:
0/7 for CCC I think.
Thanks OSB, I think I understand that.
1) ACL, the fixture and fittings, lease is security for the bonds regardless of who holds the shares in ACL
2) the bond holders will have to approve or reject any sale of shares.
3) the security in the bonds mean that whoever buys in will have to pay 8-9x what wasps did
4) whoever buys will have to also take on the liability for a debt they never took on
5) wasps won't want to sell the shares anyway
6) wasps don't need the club and therefore are completely in the box seat for negotiations which will likely be a take it or leave it off
7) we're up shit creek without a paddle
8) wasps aren't going to make any deal based on on the improbability if flukeing a promotion in the future
It's all very depressing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 How did you come to that conclusion?
4 Depends on how any deal is structured.
5 Who can see into the future. A lack of funds from repayments could leave them with a relegation side.
6 Wasps need money. And we don't know the full details of anything already agreed.
7 It isn't over yet although it doesn't look that good at the moment.
8 They will make a deal that gives them as much money as they can get knowing being too greedy can mean no extra money and the loss of goodwill from the local population.
3. Based on OSB's estimate of £17m - wasps paid £2.77m for half of ACL.
4. Based on what OSB said, it looks as though they would
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It wasn't the purchase cost either way was it?So no debt was taken on by Wasps?
And I can only see it happening if Wasps are desperate to do a deal. So who has a clue what any deal would entail?
Or is it when Wasps took on the debt it wasn't counted as a purchase cost but if we take on the debt it is counted as a purchase cost?
It wasn't the purchase cost either way was it?
I have asked the question about the 17m Stu said it would cost us to purchase what Wasps bought for 2.77m and nothing else
So no debt was taken on by Wasps?
And I can only see it happening if Wasps are desperate to do a deal. So who has a clue what any deal would entail?
Or is it when Wasps took on the debt it wasn't counted as a purchase cost but if we take on the debt it is counted as a purchase cost?
The debt it acl's not wasps. It is ACL that will pay it back, not wasps. OSB has explained this a number of times - the purchase price was £2.77m x2.
Wasps have done the bonds, used ACL as security. Even if you want to include the loan in the purchase price that would only be £7m (half of £14m) so still nowhere near to £17m.
And as OSB has explained it's the balance of the liabilities (the loan) against the assets (fixtures and fittings, lease, etc) and when balanced the shares were worth £2.77m for 50%. Well that's what they paid for them. What wasps then did borrowing the money and shifting the debt is by the by.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
http://www.wasps.co.uk/news/article/2014/10/08/the-ricoh-arena-q-as
Spin spin spinnity spin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I have to say Seppala did a good job at driving the price down on the Ricoh. It was just a shame she never got round to making a formal offer.
The crazy thing is as we all know by the time the price had been driven down we were in exile which appeared from the outside at least all SISU's fault. The rent deals offered during shambolic attempts at negogiation seemed like good deals again from the outside but that was in part to the original sky high rent. The deal therefore that brought us back is fantastic in comparison to original and previous deals. Now we are also aware that Wasps and Derek Richardson have taken an interest in the Ricoh for some time. Before the rent dispute maybe? The timing of our move back to the Ricoh and the completion of the sale would mean negotiations began prior to our move? Was the Wasps sale on the grounds of our move back? Would be nice to know. Why did the council say it was time to build bridges and start afresh when it appears and they would also be aware of the timing in announcing it that it would look suspicious? What I'm trying to say is I believe that for a very long time a serious offer from SISU, perhaps before the shoddy negotiations, the council would not sell to SISU. Perhaps because they had someone else in mind, a preferred bidder. They have in my opinion pulled the wool over everyones eyes during this whole thing. SISU, we expect manipulative, we expect deceit, all those things but not those that have been elected to represent. As alluded to at the start of me droning on. When it all started I believed it was all SISU's fault
Was the 5.5m for the whole thing?
Nobody thought the deal for the 50% that SISU were offered was worth taking up.
Nobody.
What? Are you sure?
Hence the reason I said by the time the price was driven down we were in exile. Interesting that it was only 50% for 5.5m unlike for 100% and lease extension. Yet you believe we should have paid the 5.5m? I imagine with the 5.5m for 50% deal, we would also have taken on the liability for the loan or half of it? What a steal!
Yes.
Nobody took it up, nobody bought any of ACL under those terms.
What? Are you sure?
Look back. I was one of a fair few that wanted them to sort the deal out and saw it as a good price. I even said that it would all end in tears if they kept up with the crap. I got called deluded.
What? Are you sure?
Look back. I was one of a fair few that wanted them to sort the deal out and saw it as a good price. I even said that it would all end in tears if they kept up with the crap. I got called deluded.
How about a simple straight forward answer Stu
Wasps paid 2.77m you say for a 50% stake but you also say it would cost us 17m for a 50% stake. Why would it?
And BTW if you add 7.2m to 2.77m you get 10m.
The bond holders have a charge not only over the long lease but also the ACL shares and assets. Any change in that situation (eg a sale of some ACL shares) affects the security value that the bondholders have. The bond holder trustees may say that the sale doesn't change the value or even improves it and leave things as they are with everything charged - will SISU accept taking on the Risk though allow a charge over their shares but not benefit from the bonds?. However if the bondholders view the new ownership as weaker that might mean a decrease in valuation of the security. Usually lenders will ask for additional assets or a decrease in their exposure ie reduce the amount outstanding.
Any potential sale of say the ACL shares triggers a decision to be made by the bondholders who are represented by their Trustees. In effect they approve it or not. They do not have to say yes. Do the bondholders see having CCFC on board as an improvement in their risk? As CCFC fans we would say yes but we are not talking CCFC fans who are making the decision
Also going forward even if the bondholders agree to say 50% of ACL shares being owned by Wasps and being charged then that reduces the Wasps Holdings income and assets going forward so you would think the bondholders would seek to reduce their amount outstanding to match the amount sold. that means applying the funds to repaying So to buy in could be going to cost (or be worth) at least £17m for 50%. Would they sell at par? or seek a profit?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?